The Forum > General Discussion > Dual Citizenship Revisited (2nd revisit)
Dual Citizenship Revisited (2nd revisit)
- Pages:
-
- 1
- Page 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- ...
- 7
- 8
- 9
-
- All
The National Forum | Donate | Your Account | On Line Opinion | Forum | Blogs | Polling | About |
Syndicate RSS/XML |
|
About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy |
Even if they could be forced to re-pay their salary and entitlements, they'd probably then be able to sue for at least some of that back for the time they invested and the work they did.
Either way, financially destroying someone seems to me to be a disproportionately harsh penalty for carelessness.
--
Aidan,
The Constitution is the highest authority in the country and cannot just be overridden with other legislation. A referendum is required to change the Constitution. Australia wouldn’t be much of a democracy if our politicians could simply circumvent the Constitution with legislation. Where would the protection be in that?
<<I think the court has really overstepped the mark on this one. The constitution did not include a bureaucratic restriction on timing, but the judges imposed one anyway …>>
The Constitution also doesn’t state that elected MPs must have taken all reasonable steps to denounce their foreign citizenship either, but doing so is an exception placed on sub-s 44(i) by the High Court the last time they oversaw the issue of MPs with dual citizenships.
The Constitution doesn’t include a lot of things. That’s why we have the High Court - to interpret the Constitution and determine the most reasonable outcome where ambiguities exist.
<<… even though such an imposition is neither in the interest of justice nor what the writers of the constitution intended.>>
Not even what the founding fathers intended? How do you know this? Have you read the 1890s debates concerning sub-s 44(i)? I’m pretty sure the sitting members of the High Court would have checked those.